Conversion of Agricultural Land to Non-agricultural Uses

Bangladesh Development Studies 

Vol. XXXIV, March 2011, No. 1 

Conversion of Agricultural Land to 

Non-agricultural Uses in Bangladesh: 

Extent and Determinants 

MD ABUL QUASEM * 

Bangladesh is a land scarce country where per capita cultivated land is only 

12.5 decimals. It is claimed that every year about one per cent of farm land in 

the country is being converted to non-agricultural uses (such high rate of 

conversion will not only hamper agricultural production but will have adverse 

impact on food security). The present study estimates the rate of land 

conversion and consequent loss of agricultural production of the country 

besides determining the factors affecting such conversion. The study is based 

mainly on field survey covering 24 villages from six divisions of the country 

Annual Conversion of farm land is estimated to be 0.56 per cent and the 

country’s loss of rice production is also estimated to be between 0.86 and 1.16 

per cent. The converted land is predominantly used for construction of houses, 

followed by roads and establishment of business enterprises. The land poor 

records higher rate of land conversion. The two principal determining factors 

for such conversion are found to be land ownership size of a household and 

the non-agricultural occupation of household heads. To arrest the existing rate 

of land conversion, the surveyed households suggest for more profitable rates 

of return from farming activities besides imposing special sales tax for 

conversion of farm land. 

I.1 Background of the Study 

I. INTRODUCTION 

With the growth of a country’s economy, agricultural land is usually transferred 

to non-agriculture as the demand for non-farm products and services increases. This 

* The author is a former Senior Research Fellow of the Bangladesh Institute of Development 

Studies (BIDS), Dhaka. He expresses his deep sense of gratitude to the anonymous referee 

for his wide ranging comments on the paper. He is grateful to the Krishi Gobeshana 

Foundation (GKF), Dhaka for financing the research project, “Agricultural Land Loss and 

Food Security in Bangladesh: An Assessment” carried out in collaboration with the 

Bangladesh Unnayan Parishad (BUP), Dhaka. His sincere gratitudes is also due to several 

researchers of BIDS, GKF and BUP for their valuable suggestions while carrying out the 

study.

60 


is specially so when the country’s population and its per capita income rise. 

Transfer of farm land to non-agriculture is also needed for expansion of housing 

facilities in both rural and urban localities. Such transfer is also evidenced in 

building infrastructures such as roads, markets, educational institutions, electricity 

and industrial establishments, etc. 

We are not aware of the extent of conversion of farm land for non-agricultural 

uses in Bangladesh and consequent production losses in agriculture. It is generally 

claimed that in Bangladesh every year over 80 thousand hectares of agricultural 

land i.e. nearly one per cent a year (Planning Commission 2009) is being converted 

to non-agriculture. This is definitely a matter of serious concern for the land-scarce 

country like Bangladesh where per capita cultivated area is only 15 decimals. This 

is too meagre an amount for the country’s food security as the productivity of land 

in Bangladesh is also low. Another case study, carried out in 2004 by Directorate of 

Land Records and Surveys (DLRS) of the Ministry of Land in Palas Upazilla of 

Narsingdi and Sonargaon of Narayanganj district, observed a substantial decline in 

the share of agricultural land to the extent of 27 per cent in Palas and 16 per cent in 

Sonargaon during the period of 20 and 25 years respectively (1983-2003; 1978- 

2003) i.e. more than one per cent per year. On the other hand, there has been 

several-fold increase in the area under housing and permanent fallows in both these 

areas. 

The recently completed report on Agriculture Sample Survey of Bangladesh- 

2005 by Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS) does not, however, show such high 

rate of decline in cultivated land. Total cultivated land of all holdings in rural 

Bangladesh amounts to 17.77 million acres in 2005 which was almost the same in 

1996 i.e. before nine years (Table I). This is difficult to explain. It seems to be due 

to conversion of forest and low lying fishing land as well as newly accreted char 

land to crop cultivations; this needs careful investigation. It may, however, be noted 

that the cultivated area per farm household has over time reduced to 1.20 acres in 

2005 from 1.50 acres, recorded in 1996. This is largely due to a sharp rise in the 

number of rural farm households, by 24 per cent, from 11.8 million in 1996 to 14.7 

million in 2005. 

The recently completed Agricultural Census-2008 finds the number of farm 

households (14.40 million) almost equal to the figure of 2005 (14.47 million) 

accounting for 56.74 per cent of total rural households of the country. During the 12 

year period of 1996 to 2008 the number of rural families increased from 17.8 

million to 25.36 million i.e. an increase by 42.5 per cent. All these new families 

must have residential accommodations largely derived from the existing 

Agricultural land, indicating their absolute decline over time. The Government of

Quasem: Conversion of Agricultural Land to Non-agricultural Uses 61 

Bangladesh is very much aware of such conversion of agricultural land and 

accordingly it has framed the National Land Use Policy-2001 keeping in view the 

competitive use of land for food production, housing, urbanisation and environment 

protection. The Policy has also emphasized the efficient use of land to ensure 

minimum level of food security to people and suggests restrictive use of land for 

housing, physical infrastructures and other constructions. For full-fledged 

implementation of the Policy, the Land Act is being formulated. 

In Bangladesh, the average cultivated holding is too small for sustainable 

livelihood of farmers, especially of the marginal and small ones. The land 

transferred to non-agriculture is derived mainly from the land poor (upto 2.49 acres) 

constituting 88 per cent of total farm holdings. They are thus, becoming more 

vulnerable to food insecurity. Increasing number of functionally landless and the 

tenant farm households seem to have been already affected by the reduced size of 

farms and land degradation due to intensive cropping. 

TABLE I 

CULTIVATED AREA IN THE THREE CENSUS/SURVEYS 

OF BANGLADESH 

(in ‘000 acres) 

Census/Survey Year 

Cultivated Area of 

All Holdings Farm Holdings 

Agriculture Sample Survey-2005 

Total 18,084 18,047 

Rural 17,725 17,692 

Agriculture Census-Rural 1996 17,771 17,749 

Agriculture Census-1983/84 20,158 20,139 

Source: BBS (2006). 

Note: Net cultivated area is the area actually cropped during the census year regardless of 

the number of crops grown and it includes the area under temporary crops, current 

fallow, and permanent crops (Fruits wood trees); In other words, it is the actual area 

occupying perennial and non-perennial crops and area under current fallow. 

I.2 Objectives of the Study 

There has hardly been any study in the area of conversion of farm land to nonagricultural 

uses. The present study has been initiated with the objective of 

assessing the loss of farm land to non-agriculture during the eight year period of 

2001-2008 and identify the factors affecting such conversion of land and also

62 


investigate into the current pattern of non-agricultural uses. To be more specific, the 

main objectives of the study are to: 

i. Estimate annual conversion of agricultural land to non-agriculture and 

consequent loss of crop production during the eight year period of 2001 to 

2008; 

ii. Investigate into the present pattern of non-agricultural uses of the converted 

land; 

iii. Determine the factors affecting such conversion of agricultural land to nonagriculture; 

and 

iv. Suggest suitable policy measures towards protection of farm land in the 

country. 

I.3 The Survey Methodology and Analysis of Data 

The study is based primarily on a field survey carried out in 24 villages spread 

over in all six administrative divisions of the country i.e. four in each division. In 

each division besides the city localities one district town and in that selected district, 

one Upazilla town was selected purposively. The selected district was Laxmipur in 

the Chittaging division and Sunamganj from Sylhet, Faridpur from Dhaka, Naogaon 

from Rajshahi, Jhenaidah from Khulna and Pirojpur from Barisal Division. The 

Upazillas selected in those districts were respectively Raipur, Jamalganj, Sadarpur, 

Mohadevpur, Kaliganj and Sharup Kathi as Shown in Table II. In each of the 

selected Upazillas another set of six villages in rural areas was also included in the 

survey to compare the extent of land conversion in actual rural areas vis-avis urban 

conditions at every level of the City, District and Upazilla, termed as Metro village, 

Urban village, Peri-urban village respectively. The name of the village and their 

locations may be seen in Table II . 

The selection of villages for field survey at the outskirts of the cities and towns 

was quite complex as we first had to capture the area potential for urban expansion 

and industrialisation that existed eight years ago keeping in mind the level of land 

conversion that took place during the study period of early 2001 to end 2008. To 

understand the recent trend in the changes in land use, the selected villages should 

have the normal access to the cities and towns leaving at present 20 to 30 per cent of 

the village area under agriculture indicating that there is still scope for land 

conversion to non-agriculture. It also suggests that eight years back there was no 

limitation to land conversion as far as land availability was concerned. Furthermore, 

the villages should not be of very much low-lying topography that was abnormally 

flooded that might restrict land conversion. So, for the selection of representative


villages at the outskirt of each category of town, one needs to visit several villages 

around all the selected towns and consult several groups of urban and peri-urban 

dwellers to understand the previous situations. In the selection of rural villages care 

was also taken to cover very similar to the one slected near the Upazilla centre. 

In each of the selected villages 25 households were selected at random from the 

list of resident farmers, prepared earlier by the Sub-Assistant Agricultural Officers 

(SAAO) of the Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE). The enlisted farmers 

were found to include predominantly the resident land owners of different sizes. 

These households were interviewed following a structured questionnaire that 

contains household information relating to area owned and its uses, size of the 

family, occupation of the household head, amount of land converted in the last 8 

years from January 2001 to December 2008, current non-agriculture uses of 

converted land, loss of agriculture production, changes in the levels of food 

security, causes of land conversion, etc. The household survey was conducted in 

July-September 2009. It may be mentioned that in each division four villages were 

selected fo which three were located at the outskirt of the city, district town and 

Upazilla town and another was the rural village. In all these villages in a division 

100 households were interviewed totaling to 600 in the six divisions of Bangladesh, 

as shown in Table II. 

TABLE II 

SELECTED STUDY VILLAGES BY DIVISION IN 2008 

Division Metro-Village 

(City 

Corporation 

Barisal Karamja 

(Barisal 

Sadar) 

Khulna Lata 

(Dumuria) 

Rajshahi Dharampur 

(Motihar) 

Dhaka Gacha 

(Joydebpur) 

Sylhet Bangshi Dhar 

(Sylhet Sadar) 

Chittagong Madhayam 

Mohra 

(Chittgong) 

Urban Village 

(District 

Town) 

Uttar 

Namajpur 

(Pirojpur) 

Bisay Khali 

(Jhenaidah) 

Bhabani Gathi 

(Naogaon) 

Paschim- 

Khabaspur 

(Faridpur) 

Ganipur 

(Sunamganj) 

Atia Tali 

(Taxmipur) 

Peri-urban 

Village 

(Upazila) 

Auria 

(Sharup Kathi) 

Helai 

(Kaliganj) 

Bil- 

Mohammadpur 

(Mohadebpur) 

Satero Roshi 

(Sadarpur) 

Talia 

(Jamalganj) 

Purba Lach 

(Raipur) 

Rural Area 

(Upazilla) 

Sangit Kathi 

(Sharup Kathi) 

Shalikha 

(Kaliganj) 

Chok 

Harballav 

(Mohadebpur) 

Amirabad 

(Sadarpur) 

Shahapur 

(Jamalganj) 

Debipur 

(Raipur) 

Total 

Households 

Interviewed 

(No) 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100

64 


The analysis in the report has been made on the basis of residential status of the 

households as (a) metropolitan, (b) urban i.e. district town, (c) peri-urban i.e. 

upazilla town and (d) rural. In addition to residential status, survey findings have 

also been examined with respect to land ownership size as functionally landless 

(upto 0.5 acre), marginal (0.51 acre to 1.0 acre), small (1.01 acres to 2.5 acres), 

medium (2.51 acres to 5.0 acres) and large (5.01 acres and above). The main 

hypothesis of the study is that proportional share of converted agricultural land to 

non-agriculture rises with the level of urbanisation while declines with the increase 

in land ownership size of the household. That implies that the rates of land 

conversion are higher in metro and urban villages and also among the land poor 

and, hence, they are becoming more vulnerable to food insecurity. 

II. SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE 

SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS 

II.1 Size of the Family and Occupational Distribution 

The average size of the family in the study areas was 5.1, which is little higher 

than the national average of 4.85 in 2007 (BBS 2007). The largest family size was 

found in large land owners’ group and the least in the case of landless households 

that reflects the country’s general situation. 

About the occupational distribution of the household heads in the surveyed 

villages, cultivation was identified to be the highest occupation, followed by trading 

and labour. Forty four per cent of the households were occupied in agriculture 

against BBS findings of 47.5 per cent in 2005. The occupational distribution also 

shows that the proportional share of the cultivator households expected, while that 

of the traders declines from 31 per cent to 15 per cent (Table III). Such declining 

trend was also noted in both the service holders’ and that transport workers’ groups. 

The pattern of occupational distribution in the study areas thus is very similar to the 

country’s average situation. 

II.2 Land Use in the Surveyed Villages 

As far as the land use is concerned, the crop land had the highest coverage of 78 

per cent with marginal variation by the residential status of the localities (74 to 81 

per cent). The next important land use was in the homestead area sharing 11 per 

cent of total area coverage. Its average size was estimated to be 0.18 acre, very close 

to the national average. The two other important land uses were recorded in orchard 

and bamboo bushes and the non-crop agriculture (Table IV). Non-crop agriculture 

had a larger share in metropolitan village, may be occupied by poultry and dairy 

farms.


II.3 Land Ownership Distribution 

The average land ownership size was 1.68 acres ranging from 1.46 acres in 

metropolitan village to 1.86 acres in rural village. The largest size was recorded in 

the rural area as expected. 

The average land ownership size of the landless households was 0.22 acre and 

in the case of large owners the size was estimated to be 8.40 acres (Table V). 

The distribution of households shows that about one-third of them was 

functionally landless (upto 0.5 acre), followed by small land owners (1.0 to 2.5 

acres) estimated to be 26 per cent as shown in Table VI. The BBS survey 2007 on 

household income and expenditures, on the other hand, found higher proportion of 

the functionally landless (60 per cent) and the small land owners only 17.6 per cent. 

The lower proportion of the landless in the present survey was mainly due to 

exclusion of the completely landless households numbering to over 10 per cent of 

total households while selecting the households from the list prepared by the 

SAAOs of the DAE. 

The number of large owner households was 7.0 per cent owning 35 per cent of 

total land. The marginal land owners including the functionally landless households 

shared 14 per cent of total owned by the interviewed households (Table VI). It may 

be pointed out that the share of large owners’ land to all land was 39 per cent in 

both the metro-village and the urban village, indicating more skewed distribution of 

land in these villages. Any way, the overall pattern of land distribution in the 

surveyed villages is very similar to the average distribution pattern of land in 

Bangladesh. 

TABLE III 

OCCUPATIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLD HEADS BY RESIDENCE 

(Per Cent) 

Principal Occupation Metropolitan Urban Pre-urban Rural Total 

Crop Agriculture 30.0 42.7 46.0 54.7 43.3 

Non-crop Agriculture 0.7 2.0 0 1.3 1.0 

Labour 12.0 4.7 12.0 10.7 `9.8 

Transport 3.3 4.0 2.0 1.3 2.7 

Trading 30.7 24.0 26.0 15.3 24.0 

Service 14.0 10.7 8.0 5.3 9.5 

House Work 0.7 3.3 1.3 3.3 2.2 

Industry 0 0.7 0 0.7 0.3 

Old age 4.7 3.3 3.3 6.0 4.3 

Retired 4.0 4.7 1.3 1.3 2.8 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Source: Field Survey, BUP, 2009.

66 


TABLE IV 

LAND USE AND ITS AVERAGE OWNERSHIP SIZE BY RESIDENCE IN 2008 

Land use 

Metropolitan Urban Peri-urban Rural All areas 

% of Average % of Average % of Average % of Average % of Average 

Land (acre) Land (acre) Land (acre) Land (acre) Land (acre) 

Homestead and its 

Adjacent Area 

10.2 0.15 10.5 0.19 9.8 0.16 12.3 0.23 10.8 0.18 

Crop Land 73.8 1.46 79.1 1.87 80.9 1.50 76.0 1.67 77.6 1.62 

Orchard and 

Bamboo Bush 

2.9 0.11 4.8 0.22 5.0 0.15 6.6 0.18 5.0 0.17 

Non-crop 

Agricultural Land 

9.0 0.31 2.7 0.12 3.3 0.11 2.9 0.11 4.3 0.16 

Non-Agricultural 

Establishments 

3.1 0.12 2.1 0.12 1.0 0.07 1.3 0.14 1.8 0.11 

Others 1.0 0.41 0.6 0.24 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.47 0.6 0.34 

Total 100.0 1.46 100.0 1.78 100.0 1.62 100.0 1.86 100.0 1.68 

Source: Field Survey, BUP, 2009. 

TABLE V 

AVERAGE LAND AREA OWNED AND THE FAMILY SIZE BY 

LAND OWNERSHIP SIZE OF HOUSEHOLDS 

Land Ownership Size Area Owned (acre) Family Size (no) 

Landless 0.22 4.8 

Marginal 0.47 5.1 

Small 1.63 4.9 

Medium 3.42 5.7 

Large 8.40 6.2 

All Households 


1.68 5.1 

Note: Landless upto 0.5 acre; Marginal 0.51 to 1.0 acres, small 1.01 acres to 2.5 acres; Medium 

2.51 acres to 5.0 acres, and Large – 5.01 acres and above. 

TABLE VI 

DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS BY LAND OWNERSHIP SIZE AND RESIDENCE 

(PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS AND AREA OWNED) 

Residence Landless Marginal Small (100 to Medium (250 Large (500 Total Average 

(below 50 (50-99 249 decimals) to 499 decimals and Households Ownership 

decimal) decimal) 

decimal) above) (No.) Size (acre) 

Metropolitan 38.7 24.7 18.7 10.0 8.0 150 1.46 

(4.9) (11.9 (20.6) (23.3) (39.3 (100) 

Urban 36.7 20.0 23.3 13.3 6.7 150 1.78 

(4.0) (8.1) (21.5) (27.2) (39.2) (100) 

Peri-urban 28.0 25.3 26.7 12.7 7.3 150 1.62 

(4.6) (12.2) (26.5) (25.8) (31.0) (100) 

Rural 23.3 22.0 34.0 14.7 6.0 150 1.86 

(3.3) (8.8) (30.1) (26.5) (31.3) (100) 

All Households 31.7 23.0 25.7 12.7 7.0 600 1.68 

(4.1) (10.1) (24.9) (25.8) (35.0) (100) 


Note: Figures within brackets indicate the per cent area owned by them in each residential area.


III. AGRICULTURAL LAND CONVERTED TO NON-AGRICULTURE 

III.1 Amount of Land Converted 

The current survey estimated that during the eight year study period of 2001 to 

2008, 46.25 acres of agricultural land was converted to non-agriculture (Table VII). 

In such conversion 251 land owners i.e. 42 per cent of interviewed households were 

involved. Land converters during the period were maximum in metro-village 

(54 per cent) and the lowest in peri-urban and rural villages (35 per cent). Among 

the divisions, Dhaka recorded the highest proportion of converters (52 per cent) in 

the area and the least in Sylhet (27 per cent) as shown in Annexure Table I. 

Conversion of agricultural land with respect to total land owned in the year 

2001 in the surveyed villages during the study period amounts to 4.50 per cent or 

0.56 per cent per year. The annual rate of conversion varies from 0.25 to 0.74 per 

cent in peri-urban and urban-village respectively (Table VII). The present estimate 

is lower than the previous figure of about one per cent, often quoted. The higher 

rates of conversion in the current survey were noted in both urban and metrovillages 

as hypothesised. This is considered to be mainly due to higher price of land 

(Annexure Table II). It is also important to note that the price of homestead land is 

higher by 45 per cent compared to that of farm land, recording wide variation 

among the Divisions. Farm land in Sylhet is observed to be cheapest as it is 

generally single cropped and people do not prefer farming. The lower conversion in 

peri-urban villages might be due to stagnation in physical infrastructure building 

and in the functioning of the local government-Upazilla Parishad during the period. 

III.2 Conversion of Land by Division 

About the annual rate of conversion of land by region, the highest rate of 

conversion during the period was recorded in Dhaka division (estimated to be 1.45 

per cent per year), while the lowest rate of conversion was experienced in Khulna 

division, only 0.26 per cent a year (Annexure Table I). Chittagong and Sylhet 

divisions had the conversion rate of 0.45 and 0.47 per cent respectively. 

Average amount of land converted during the period amounts to 18.4 decimals 

by the converter households and 7.7 decimals when considered all households. 

Among the converters it was as high as 28.5 decimals in Dhaka Division, while the 

lowest was in Barisal (7.6 decimals) as shown in Annexure Table III. According to 

residential status, maximum converted area per household was recorded in both 

rural and urban area (24.8 decimals each). Of all the converters the highest number 

was observed in the metro-villages constituting about one-third of this total 

household in this category.

68 

III.3 Conversion of Land by Land Ownership Size 


According to land ownership size the proportion of land converters generally 

increases with their size, the average being 42 per cent. It increases from 30 per cent 

among landless households to 35 per cent among the large landowners during 2001 

to 2008, which is expected (Table VIII). But in terms of land owned by them, the 

highest rate of conversion was recorded among the functionally landless households 

estimated to be 23 per cent or 2.9 per cent a year and the lowest among the large 

land ownership groups (1.6 per cent) or only 0.2 per cent of their land per year. In 

the remaining three other groups, the rate of conversion was observed to be about 

0.6 per cent per year. The highest rate of conversion among landless households 

suggests that they are becoming more vulnerable to food security, especially when 

their land ownership size is alarmingly low (0.22 acre). 

III.4 Land Converted under Different Possessions 

During the eight year study period, land was converted to non-agricultural uses 

under different possession rights other than self-ownership. Some land was sold, 

some acquired by the government and some was donated. The data show that the 

major proportion (45 per cent) of the converted was sold while only 34 per cent was 

converted under self ownership, where peri-urban village dominate covering 55 per 

cent of total converted land (Table IX). Land acquired by the government had also 

significant share (19 per cent), mostly observed in urban village (38 per cent). It 

may be noted that conversion after sales was substantially high in rural and in 

metro-village, as compared to other this categories. Such analysis by land 

ownership size indicates that 63 per cent of large land owners’ converted land took 

place under self-ownership, while only 17 per cent was in the case of landless 

category (Table X). Conversion that occurred after sales of the land was quite high 

among the medium land owners. Surprisingly, over half of the converted land of the 

landless households was derived from acquired land. Such share for the large land 

owners was negligible (2.1 per cent), indicating that the land poor is more adversely 

affected by the acquisition of land by the state. 

III.5 Share of Crop Land to Converted Land 

It has been observed that of the total converted agricultural land, crop land 

occupied 90 per cent where different crops were cultivated. The remaining 10 per 

cent was used either in bamboo bushes and jungles or left fallow. There was some


land where unplanned orchards and trees were also grown. The share of crop land 

was the highest in rural villages (95 per cent) and the lowest (85 per cent) in both 

the peri-urban and metropolitan villages (Table VII). 1 Among the five land 

ownership categories, the share of crop land in the converted land was the highest 

(93 per cent) in small category and the lowest (85 per cent) among the marginal 

land category (Table VIII). In Dhaka division, 95 per cent of the converted land was 

derived from crop land, indicating that there is little scope for further urban 

expansion in the division without losing valuable crop land, which is a matter of 

serious concern. 

III.6 Agricultural Land Converted at the National Level 

According to our estimate, agricultural land is being converted at a rate of 0.56 

per cent per year. On the basis of this rate of conversion and the country’s total 

cultivated area of all farm households amounting to 7.19 million hectares in 1996, 

conversion of land amounts to 40,452 hectares per year. 

Another estimate based on annual per household conversion of land @ 0.0096 

acre {(46.25 acres ÷ 600) ÷ 8} and the rural land owning households numbering to 

16.01 million or {(17.828 − 1.815 or 10.18% completely landless)} in 1996 annual 

converted land is estimated to be 62,478 hectares. None of these estimates is close 

to the previously quoted figure of over 80,000 hectares. Furthermore if the 

previously quoted figure of 80,000 hectares is taken into account, total converted 

land in the country comes to 720,000 hectares during the nine year period of 1996 to 

2005. But the total cultivated area in rural Bangladesh remains almost the same 

(17.77 million acres) in both the years of 1996 and 2005 with marginal difference of 

only 46,000 acres. We may, therefore, conclude that the previous figure of land 

conversion is an over estimate. 

1 

Chi-square test shown that there was statistically significant difference in the rate of 

conversion of land between the urban and peri-urban village.

70 

Residence 


TABLE VII 

AMOUNT OF LAND CONVERTED DURING THE PERIOD OF 8 YEARS 

FROM 2001 TO 2008 BY RESIDENCE 

Total Land 

Owned in 

2001 

(acres) 


Converted 

(acres) 

Per cent 

Land 

Converted 

in 8 Years 

Annual 

Rate of 

Conversion 

(%) Crop 


Per cent of 

Converted Land 

from 

Noncrop 


Metro-village 225.11 12.24(54) 5.44 0.68 85.38 14.62 

Urban Village 276.0 16.35(44) 5.92 0l.74 90.21 9.79 

Peri-urban Village 240.66 4.75(35) 1.97 0.25 85.26 14.74 

Rural Village 286.31 12.91(35) 4.51 0.56 95.43 4.57 

All Areas 1028.0 46.25 4.50 0.56 89.88 10.12 


Note: Figures within parentheses indicate the per cent of households who converted 

agricultural land to non-agricultural uses in each residence category. 

TABLE VIII 

NUMBER OF HOUSEHLDS CONVERTED LAND AND THE AMOUNT OF LAND 

CONVERTED BY LAND OWNERSHIP SIZE DURING THE 

EIGHT YEAR PERIOD 2001-2008 

Land Ownership Size 

No. of 

Households 

Converted 

Per Cent of 

Households 

Converted 

Per Cent of all 

Households’ Area 

Converted in 8 

Years 

Per Cent Share of 

Total 

Crop Land Non-crop 


Landless 68 36 22,9 (2.86) 90.8 9.2 

Marginal 48 35 4.6 (058) 82.9 17.1 

Small 69 45 4.6 (0.58) 93.1 6.7 

Medium 43 56 4.7 (0.59) 88.9 11.1 

Large 23 55 1.6 (0.20) 89.0 11.0 

All Households 251 42 4.5 (0.56) 89.9 10.1 


Note: Figures in the parentheses indicate annual rate of conversion. 

TABLE IX 

AMOUNT OF LAND CONVERTED BY POSSESSION STATUS AND RESIDENCE 

(Percentage) 

Residence Self- Sold Acquired Donation Others 

Ownership 

Occupation 

Metro-village 40.36 56.45 0.65 1.96 0.57 

Urban Village 30.46 29.72 38.04 1.77 - 

Peri-urban Village 54.95 31.37 9.05 4.63 - 

Rural Village 23.55 59.02 15.65 1.78 - 

All Areas 33.66 45.15 18.92 2.12 0.15 



TABLE X 

AMOUNT OF LAND CONVERTED BY POSSESSION STATUS AND THE 

LAND OWNERSHIP SIZE 

(Percentage) 

Land Ownership Size Self- Ownership Sold Acquired Donation Others 

Landless 16.78 27.14 52.83 2.74 0.51 

Marginal 48.83 45.20 2.13 3.84 - 

Small 28.94 51.15 17.28 2.55 0.09 

Medium 34.83 61.09 2.64 1.44 - 

Large 63.30 34.57 2.13 - - 

All Households 33.66 45.15 18.92 2.12 0.15 

Source: Field survey, BUP, 2009. 

IV. MAIN USES OF CONVERTED LAND AND LOSS OF 

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION 

IV.1 Non-agricultural Uses of Converted Land 

Information collected indicates that more than half (55 per cent) of the 

converted local was used in housing predominantly in metro villages (60 per cent), 

as expected. The next two important uses were in the construction of roads and 

business establishments covering 10 and 8 per cent respectively (Table XI). Nonreported 

area of use was also substantial (15 per cent). The share of such land was 

the largest in rural villages (25 p[er cent). Among different residential status of the 

households, the second most important utilisation in peri-urban villages was road 

construction covering 19 per cent of its converted land. In urban villages, next to 

housing, other major uses were (a) business establishments, (b) agro-based 

industries, (c) education and health institutions, and (d) road construction, each 

clearing five per cent of total converted land. 

It is interesting to look at the pattern of non-agricultural uses of the converted 

land by their possession or ownership status. Converted land under self-ownership 

was used predominantly in housing to the extent of 78 per cent for all villages taken 

together but it was as high as 89 per cent in rural villages. The next important uses 

were in business establishment (13 per cent) and brick fields (3 per cent), as shown 

in Annexure Table IV. The principal non-agricultural use of sold out land was also 

in housing (30 per cent) but over half of such land (56 per cent) remained 

unreported, as the owners did not stay there and the respondents were not aware of 

their current uses. Next to housing the land was occupied by mills and factories (7 

per cent), concentrated in metro-villages (13 per cent). The land sold in urban

72 


villages was largely used for office buildings and other public utilities (11 per cent), 

next to housing (44 per cent). Converted land in others’ possessions e.g. acquired, 

donations, etc. had the substantial use in the construction of road to the extent of 57 

per cent of such category land (Annexure Table IV). The next important use was by 

health and educational organisations, especially in metro villages. In peri-urban 

villages, public welfare institutions had also significant share of converted land. 

There were wide regional variations in the non-agricultural use of converted 

land. For example, housing in Barisal covered as high as 77%; while it was only 

41% in Sylhet where the requirement for new houses seemed lower. In Sylhet, the 

second most important use was the construction of roads occupying 29 per cent of 

land. In Dhaka, non-reported area was of claimed the largest share (31 per cent) of 

land, either used or not. In Barisal, public welfare establishments covered 12 per 

cent, the highest among six divisions. 

Non-agricultural uses are also found different when examined by the land 

ownership size of households although the housing claimed the maximum share in 

all the categories. Small land owners had the highest proportion (62 per cent) in 

housing while the medium owners had the lowest (42 per cent) still occupying the 

maximum proportion. In the large ownership size, next to housing, the next largest 

share (19 per cent) claimed by the business establishment but it had the least more 

among the small land owners (Table XII). Road construction claimed 16 per cent of 

the medium owners’ converted land. In the landless group, the second highest 

proportional share (8.9 per cent) was occupied by health business enterprises as well 

as education and health organisations. 

IV.2 Previous Uses of Converted Land 

As mentioned earlier, of total converted agricultural land, 90 per cent was crop 

land where different crops and vegetables were grown. Collected data show that 92 

per cent of crop land was under paddy and about 6 per cent was used for vegetables. 

The area under vegetables was higher (27 per cent) in peri-urban villages. Among 

different land ownership groups, the proportional shares of paddy land varied little, 

the highest being among the large land owners (97 per cent). In the case of 

vegetables, marginal land owners had the highest share (12 per cent). Before 

conversion, non-crop land which was kept almost unutilised amounted to 78 per 

cent, ranging between 81 and 97 per cent in metropolitan and peri-urban villages 

respectively. One-tenth of the land was occupied by bamboo bushes and trees,


mostly in urban areas (23 per cent). There were some scattered plots where 

vegetables were grown, accounting for only 6.0 per cent of land. The pattern of land 

use as practised before conversion indicates that the conversion of land to nonagricultural 

uses has adversely affected agricultural production, which is estimated 

below. 

IV.3 National Production Loss Based on Current Field Survey 

According to the present field survey, production of different crops and 

vegetables is lost due to conversion of farm land to non-agriculture. The main crops 

lost were HYV paddy, local paddy and vegetables; and total annual loss of 

production was reported to be Tk.22,774 per acre (Table XIII). On the basis of 

annual production losses of Tk.22,774 per acre, the country’s total loss from 

converted land of 40,452 hectares of 99,512 acre i.e. @ 0.56% as estimated earlier, 

stands at Tk. 228 crore per year. 

IV.4 Estimated National Loss of Rice Production 

It may be relevant to estimate the amount of losses of rice production due to 

conversion of agricultural land in Bangladesh. Annual loss of rice production has 

been assessed on the basis of 5.12 acres of crop land as determined earlier. If the 

converted land is double cropped by Boro (HYV) and half by Aman (HYV) and 

half by local Aman considering all areas under cultivation of paddy, total amount of 

annual loss of paddy from the converted land (5.12 acres) roughly amounts to 465 

maunds @ 90 maunds per acre or 0.028 ton per household. Total land-owning 

households in Bangladesh being 16.01 million, total loss of paddy production in the 

country amounts to 0.448 million or 4.5 lakh ton, which is equivalent to 3.02 lakh 

tons of rice and thus, with respect to country’s total production of 27 million metric 

tons, it stands at about 1.16 per cent. Another estimate based on the proportion of 

agricultural land converted amounting to 5,0995 million acres and per acre annual 

loss of rice (2.24 ton/acre) reported above stands at 0.223 million tons i.e. 0.86 per 

cent of the country’s annual production of rice. It would thus appear that due to 

conversion of agricultural land to non-agriculture, annual loss of rice production 

amounts to between 0.86 and 1.16 per cent of the country’s total rice production, 

which is not a negligible amount.

74 

TABLE XI 

NON-AGRICULTURAL USES OF CONVERTED 

AGRICULTURAL LAND BY RESIDENCE4 


(Percentage) 

Current Use Metropotitan Urban Peri-urban Rural Total 

Shop/Business Enterprise 10.53 5.26 9.52 7.5 8.47 

Agro-based Industries - 5.26 - - 1.13 

Education & Health Organisation 3.51 5.26 2.38 - 2.82 

Construction of Road 5.26 5.26 19.05 10.00 9.60 

Construction of House 59.65 55.26 52.38 50.00 54.80 

Mills/Factories 5.26 - - 2.5 2.67 

Unutilised 1.75 - - - 0.56 

Public Offices & Utilities 1.75 7.89 - 5.00 2.82 

Brick Fields 1.75 2.63 2.38 - 1.69 

Non Reported 10.53 13.16 14.29 25.00 15.25 

All Uses 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 


TABLE XII 

NON-AGRICULTURAL USES OF CONVERTED AGRICULTURAL 

LAND BY LAND OWNERSHIP SIZE 

(Percentage) 

Current Use Landless Marginal Small Medium Large Total 

Shop/Business Enterprise 8.89 6.45 2.13 13.16 18.75 8.47 

Agro-based Industries - - 2.13 - 6.25 1.13 

Education & Health 

Organisation 

8.89 3.23 - - - 2.82 

Construction Road 2.22 9.68 10.64 15.79 12.50 9.60 

Construction of House 55.56 58.06 61.70 42.11 56.25 54.80 

Mills/Factories - - 2.13 5.26 6.25 2.26 

Unutilised 2.22 - - - - 0.56 

Public Offices & Utilities 2.22 6.46 6.36 - - 2.82 

Brick Fields 2.22 3.23 - 2.63 - 1.69 

Non Reported 17.78 12.90 14.89 21.05 - 15.25 

All Uses 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 



TABLE XIII 

ANNUAL PRODUCTION LOSS DUE TO CONVERSION OF 

CROP LAND BY TYPE OF CROPS GROW 

Crops Grown Total Area (acre) Total Loss of Crops 

and others (Tk) 

Per Acre Loss (Tk) 

HYV Paddy 28.88 644,137 22,304 

Local Paddy 9.28 194,650 20,975 

Vegetables 2.32 86,800 37,414 

Bamboo Bushes, Nursery & 

others 

`0.94 17,700 18,830 

All Crops and Others 41.42 94,287 22,774 


Note: Total loss of crops were estimated on the base of per acre yield of different crops on the 

prevailing market prices at the time of field survey. 

V. BENEFITS TO LAND CONVERTERS 

Conversion of agricultural land to non-agriculture is expected to benefit the 

converter households in terms of higher income and improved level of food security 

despite losses in agricultural production. Such improvement is, however, dependent 

on the type of non-agricultural uses of land and their efficiency of uses. This aspect 

has been examined by comparing the present situations between the converter (42 

per cent) and the non-converters (58 per cent) of the interviewed households. 

V.1 Food Security of the Household Level 

Respondents’ opinions indicate that 43 per cent of the converter households 

have impressed improvement in food secure compared to 32 per cent among the 

non-converters and such difference in improvement has been observed in all land 

ownership groups, more so in the medium land owner group. Some households, 

however, experienced reduction in food security in both the converter and the nonconverter 

groups though it is lower among the converters (14.3 per cent against 22.6 

per cent among non-converters) as shown in Table XIV. Food security status 

remains almost unchanged to the extent of 42 and 46 per cent in both these groups. 

It is may be mentioned here that the food security levels increased by more than 

10 per cent over time in the case of 20 per cent of the converter households 

compared to only 10% among the non-converters. Proportion of households who 

experienced reduction in the food security levels of above 10 per cent accounts for

76 


10 per cent among the converter households compared to 15 per cent in the case of 

non-converter households. 2 

Improvement in the food security levels of the converter households over the 

non-converters as reported above is not, however, reflected in the amount of 

consumption of at least three food items e.g. rice, flour and pulses. Rough estimates 

indicate equal levels of consumption in both these groups either in aggregate or by 

land ownership size. It may be mentioned that daily per capita consumption of 

cereals and pulses in the present study was estimated to be 450 gms and 20 gms 

respectively by the converter households which is marginally higher than the 

national average of 409 gms and 14.2 gms recorded in 2005 (BBS 2007). 

V.2 Income of the Households 

It is interesting to note that income of the converter households was observed to 

be higher by about 50 per cent over that of the non-converters household. Such 

higher income was recorded in all size ownership groups, but more so among the 

marginal and the large land owners. The converters have also higher share of 

income from trade and businesses (42 per cent against 36 per cent) and different 

services (24 per cent against 22 per cent). 

It may be pointed out that the improved level of food security among the 

converter households may not be due to land conversion alone. It could be the 

combined outcome of several factors such as land ownership size of the households, 

their levels of education, occupational status, etc. It may, however, be mentioned 

that the average size of land owned by a converter household is substantially higher 

( ) over the non-converters’ owned area and (prominently observed among the land 

rich). They had also higher land ownership size in 2001 (2.22 acres). The converter 

households might also be more favourably located in terms of the infrastructure 

development of the area. This, however, needs further investigation. Furthermore, 

the average value of household assets is found to be almost equal among both the 

converter and the non-converter households. Substantial differences are, however, 

noticed in the case of non-housing assets i.e. in terms of agricultural equipment, 

livestock, plantations, etc. It is found to be double for converter households. The 

average value of such productive assets of these households is estimated to be 

Tk.92,458. 

2 These figures are based on perception of the respondents in the field survey.


V.3 Reasons for Changes in Food Security Levels: Respondents’ Views 

Respondents among the converter households, whose food security levels 

improved, opined that the increase in non-agricultural income was the principal 

determinant of such improvement. This has been possible due to expansion in their 

business. The other important factors were increased crop production and more 

working members in a family. Among the non-converters, three major facilitating 

factors as identified by them were the same as is above while the fourth one was 

increased remittances from abroad. 

The deterioration in the food security levels is caused by a variety of factors. 

They are almost the same for both these groups–converter and non-converter 

households. According to the converter households, the decline in food security was 

caused by (i) the decrease in agricultural land and consequently, lower production 

of crops, (ii) increase in food prices, (iii) decline in working members in a family 

and (iv) increase in the number of members in a family. In the case of nonconverters, 

all the above mentioned causes are applicable but to them the 

predominant factor was the increased food price. Overall, we may conclude that the 

conversion of agricultural land by a household leads to increased non-agricultural 

income and consequently higher level of food security. However, the national 

concern is the attainment of minimum level of food security and also to arrest the 

rate of land conversion for sustained agricultural development in the country. 

TABLE XIV 

CHANGES IN THE LEVELS OF FOOD SECURITY BY LAND OWNERSHIP 

SIZE AND CONVERSION STATUS OF HOUSEHOLDS 

(Percentage) 

Land Ownership 

Size Converter Non- 

Converter 

Reduced Unchanged Increased 

Converter Non- 

Converter 

Converter Non- 

Converter 

Landless 17.6 30.3 45.6 40.2 36.7 29.5 

Marginal 16.7 27.8 45.8 47.8 37.5 24.4 

Small 17.4 12.9 44.9 52.9 37.7 34.1 

Medium 4.6 9.1 32.6 48.5 62.8 42.4 

Large 8.7 15.8 34.8 31.6 56.5 52.6 

All Households 14.3 22.6 42.2 45.5 43.5 31.8 


78 

VI. DETERMINANTS OF LAND CONVERSION 

VI.1 Determinants of Land Conversion: Regression Results 


Conversion of agricultural land to non-agriculture is dependent on a variety of 

factors such as number of members in a family, income earning possibilities from 

agriculture and non-agriculture uses of land besides state acquisition for 

construction of roads and institutional building, etc. Regressions analyses in this 

regard can provide better explanation by identifying the factors that determine the 

amount of land area to be converted to non-agriculture by the households. To this 

end, linear regression model is fitted taking into account several explanatory 

variables for the year 2001. * The independent variables used in the model are: 

i) Total land owned by household :T-LAND (decimals); 

ii) Homestead land owned by a household : HOME (decimals); 

iii) Proportion of non-crop land to total land owned : PNC (%) 

iv) Primary occupation of the household head : P-OCCUP (agriculture=0 & 

non-agriculture=1) 

v) Years of schooling of the household head : (number); 

vi) Per capita annual income : PCI (Tk); 

vii) Household assets other than housing : Asset (Tk); 

viii) Disaster losses : DISASTER (Tk); 

ix) Study Area Dummy (Rural = 0); 

x) Dummy for Peri-urban (PERI-UR=1); 

xi) Dummy for Urban (URBAN=2); 

xii) Dummy for Metro (METRO=3). 

The linear regression exercise hypothesises that the area of agricultural land 

converted by a household rises with the increase in its land ownership size, 

homestead area and proportional share of non-crop land to total land owned. 

Household heads with non-agricultural occupations and their years of schooling are 

also expected to encourage land conversion as they are more exposed to nonagricultural 

activities. Per capita annual income and value of non-housing assets i.e. 

agricultural equipment, livestock’s, etc. are considered to have negative impact on 

land conversion as they can use their land better for higher agricultural production 

and more income. About the dummy variable rural village is taken to be ‘0’ i.e. with 

* 

Similar exercise has also been carried out for the data of 2008 and the results are found to 

be quite similar.


respect. ‘0’ rural village, shift of study area to peri-urban, urban and metro city there 

is increasing possibility for land conversion due to urbanisation and different other 

commercial activities. 

The results of linear regression exercise show that both the total land owned by 

a household and the area under homestead have highly significant impact on the rate 

of land conversion (Table XV). The first variable has a positive effect and in case of 

10 per cent increase in total area, there would be an increase in land conversion by 

3.5 per cent. An increase in homestead land by 10 per cent, would result in a decline 

of land conversion by 1.4 per cent, which is contrary to our expectation. May be 

their homestead area is small and therefore, little scope exists for enterprise 

expansion other than housing. Positive effect of primary occupation of the 

household head is also noticed at 10 per cent level of significance, suggesting that 

non-agricultural occupation of the household head has positive impact on land 

conversion. Disaster loss, on the other hand, has significant negative impact at 10 

per cent level, indicating that the household become more conscious of retaining 

crop land for food security reason due to damages occurred due to natural 

calamities. 

Sl. No. 

TABLE XV 

DETERMINANTS OF LAND CONVERSION: RESULTS LINEAR REGRESSION 

Dependent Variable; is Total Land Converted (Decimals) 

Independent Variables Beta Sig. 

i. T-LAND 0.356 0.000 

ii. HOME (-) 0.139 0.003 

iii. P-OCCUP 0.105 0.016 

iv. Years of Schooling (No) (-) 0.006 0.894 

v. PCI 0.059 0.194 

vi. PNC (-) 0.077 0.087 

vii. ASSET 0.012 0.775 

viii. DISASTER (-) 0.079 0.056 

ix. METRO (-) 0.029 0.561 

x. URBAN 0.019 0.686 

xi. PERI-UR (-) 0.085 0.077 

Adjusted R Square 0.119 - 

Source: Author’s estimate.

80 

VI.2 Arresting Land Conversion: Respondents’ Opinions 


It is wieldy recognised that conversion of land should be discouraged in 

Bangladesh for ensuring food security in the country. The respondents have put 

forward some suggestions for arresting the current rate of land conversion. Their 

recommendations include the following (Table XVI): 

(i) agriculture should be made more profitable and attractive (49 per cent); 

(ii) special tax should be imposed on conversion of land (30 per cent); 

(iii) area-wise ceiling may be fixed for non-agricultural uses of land (11 per 

cent); 

(iv) tax exemption may be offered for commercial farms and the agro-based 

industries (10 per cent). 

While asking the respondents’ views towards increasing profitability of 

agriculture, they emphasise for raising of crop prices in the harvest seasons, ensured 

timely supplies of agricultural inputs at reasonable prices, and productivity increase 

of land through adoption of modern technologies and effective agricultural 

extension services. These suggestions are almost equally applicable to all land 

ownership groups and the residential status of the households. Also, little 

differences are observed in their views when compared between land converters and 

non-converters. 

Open discussions with the respondents in this regard also reveal that there 

should be immediate control for non-agricultural use, population growth and 

introduction of special tax on converted land; and area specific ceiling may also be 

imposed to restrict indiscriminate conversion of farm land. The above mentioned 

suggestions lead us to conclude that to arrest the present rate of land conversion two 

things are essential. These are (a) strict population control to restrict faster 

expansion of housing and road construction, and (b) making agriculture more 

profitable and attractive. 

The government of Bangladesh is, however, aware of the existing problems and 

accordingly, it is formulating strategies towards “Compact Townships” for rural 

people (Planning Commission 2009). It has also emphasised the implementation of 

National Land Use Policy 2001, towards restriction of unplanned housing and road 

construction. In this context, proper policy formulation and adequate institutional 

mechanism assume special significance.


Residential Status 

of Households 

TABLE XVI 

SUGGESTIONS FOR ARRESTING CONVERSION OF 

LAND BY RESIDENTIAL STATUS 

Special 

Tax to be 

Imposed 

Area-wise 

Ceiling for 

Non-agril. 

Uses 

Tax Exemption 

for Agro-based 

Industries 

Agriculture 

should be 

made 

Profitable 

(Percentage) 

All 

Responses 

(No) 

Metropolitan 31 9 7 52 26 (280) 

Urban 31 10 10 49 24 (250) 

Peri-urban 28 12 12 48 25 (264) 

Rural 28 12 12 48 25 (264) 

All Areas 30 11 10 49 100 (1058) 


VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

The study finds that during the eight year period of 2001 to 2008 annual 

conversion of agricultural land amounts to 0.56 per cent against the earlier reported 

figure of about one per cent. Highest rate of conversion was noted in Dhaka division 

(1.45 per cent) and the least in Khulna (0.26 per cent). In such conversion, 42 per 

cent of land owner households were involved. Among the different land ownership 

groups maximum rate of conversion was recorded among the functionally landless 

households (2.86 per cent per year) and the least was in the large land owners 

group, (0.20 per cent). 

The main non-agricultural uses of converted land were identified to be housing, 

road construction, business establishment and educational and health organisations 

occupying 55,10,8 and 3 per cent of the converted land respectively, with little 

variations among the five land ownership groups. Converted land under selfownership 

was predominantly used in housing to the extent of 78 per cent but it was 

as high as 89 per cent in urban villages. The coverage by housing in the case of sold 

out land was lower (30 per cent). 

Based on the current estimated rate of conversion (0.56 per cent per year), 

annual loss of rice production in Bangladesh amounts to 0.23 million tons or 0.86 

per cent of the country’s annual rice production. Similar exercise using loss of 

paddy (0.8 maund) per land owner household, total amount of loss of rice comes to 

0.302 million tons or about 1.16 per cent. 

Information available indicate that the conversion of land benefits the converter 

households in terms of both higher household income and improved level of food

82 


security. But the estimate of actual consumption of rice, flour and pulses was found 

to be almost equal. Improvement in the food security among the converter 

households was reportedly due to higher non-agricultural income, facilitated by 

expansion of business. 

The regression exercise carried out identifies the following factors that have 

significant effects on the rate of conversion of agricultural land are: 

(i) total land area owned by a household; 

(ii) homestead area owned; 

(iii) primary occupation of the households head; and 

(iv) disaster losses incurred during the study period. 

The regression coefficient shows that 10 per cent increase in total area owned 

by a household leads to rise in the conversion of land by 3.5 per cent; while the 

increase in homestead area by 10% reduces land conversion by 1.4 per cent. 

Perhaps, the area under homestead is small and has little scope for expansion. Nonagricultural 

occupation of the household heads also encourages land conversion. 

The main policy suggestions to arrest the magnitude of land conversion are: 

agricultural occupations need to be made more profitable and attractive compared to 

non-agriculture and at the same time special tax may be imposed on the conversion 

of crop land. Area specific ceiling for different non-agricultural uses may be 

determined and imposed in industrialisation and urbanisation. Open discussions 

with the respondents in this regard suggest strict control on population growth, 

creation of more employment opportunities in rural non-farm sector and increase of 

land productivity through adoption of modern technologies, to be facilitated by the 

use of hybrid and high yielding seeds, uninterrupted supply of electricity to the 

irrigation equipment and adequate agricultural credit at subsidised rates of interest. 

In the adoption of new technologies, improved farm management practices are 

required. 

REFERENCES 

Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics 2009: Preliminary Report on Agricultural Census – 2008. 

Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka. 

–––––––2007. Household Income and Expenditure Survey of Bangladesh. Government of 

the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka. 

–––––––2006. Agriculture Sample Survey of Bangladesh-2005, National Volum-1. 

Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka.


Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, 2001. National Land Use Policy, 

Bangladesh Gazette, June 2001. 

Ministry of Land 2004: GIS Atlas on Land Use and Environment-Palas and Sonargaon 

Upazillas Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka. 

Planning Commission 2009. Steps Towards Change – National Strategy for Accelerated 

Poverty Reduction II (Revised). FY 2009-11. Government of the People’s Republic 

of Bangladesh, Dhaka.

84 

ANNEXURE TABLE I 


AMOUNT OF LAND CONVERTED DURING THE PERIOD OF 8 YEARS 

FROM 2000 TO 2008 BY DIVISION OF THE COUNTRY 

Division Total Land 

Owned in 

2001 

(acres) 


Converted 

(acres) 

Per Cent 

of Land 

Converted 

in 8 Years 

Annual 

Rate of 

Conversion 

(%) 

Per Cent of 

Converted Land 

from 

Crop 


Non-crop 


Barisal 87.17 3.28 (43) 3.76 0.47 78.35 21.65 

Khulna 190.19 3.88 (42) 2.04 0.26 82.47 17.53 

Rajshahi 242.13 7.42 (44) 3.06 0.38 89.76 10.24 

Dhaka 172.88 20.05 (52) 11.60 1.45 95.16 4.84 

Sylhet 194.11 6.49 (27) 3.34 0.42 86.13 13.87 

Chittagong 141.54 5.13 (43) 3.62 0.45 87.13 12.87 

All Areas 1028.01 46.25 (251) 4.50 0.56 89.88 10.12 


Note: Figures within parentheses indicate the number of the converter households. 

ANNEXURE TABLE II 

AVERAGE PRICE OF LAND BY TYPE OF RESIDENCE IN 2008 

Residence Homestead Land Farm Land 

(Flood Free High Land) 

Metro-village 1,84,265 1,36,535 

Urban Village 53,240 36,545 

Peri-urban Village 30,690 17,402 

Rural Village 15,339 10,109 

All Areas 71,165 48,852 



ANNEXURE TABLE III 

AVERAGE AREA CONVERTED BY THE CONVERTED 

HOUSEHOLDS (DECIMALS) 

Division Metropolitan Urban Peri-urban Rural Village All 

Village Village Village 

Locations 

Barisal 4.2 (15) 15.4 (12) 3.0 (10) 8.3 (6) 7.6 (43) 

Khulna 2.5 (14) 13.2 (9) 9.5 (10) 15.4 (9) 9.2 (42) 

Rajshahi 5.1 (16) 17.2 (11) 19.9 (8) 34.8 (9) 16.8 (44) 

Dhaka 41.5 (18) 73.0 (12) 11.5 (12) 24.4 (10) 38.5 (52) 

Sylhet 13.7 (6) 8.5 (9) 5.5 (8) 58.5 (8) 24.0 (27) 

Chittagong 18.0 (12) 14.5 (13) 3.9 (10) 7.7 (10) 11.9 (43) 

All Areas 15.1 (81) 24.8 (66) 9.1 (52) 24.8 (52) 18.4 (251) 


Note: Figures within parentheses indicate the number of the converter households. 

Residence 

Metro 

Village 

Urban 

Village 

Peri- 

urban 

Village 

Rural 

Village 

All 

Villages 

ANNEXURE TABLE IV 

THREE MAJOR NON-AGRICULTURAL USES OF CROP LAND BY 

POSSESSION/OWNERSHIP STATUS AND THE 

RESIDENCE OF HOUSEHOLDS 

Self-ownership Sold Acquired, Donation & Others 

1 st 2 nd 

3 rd 

1 st 2 nd 

3 rd 

1 st 2 nd 

3 rd 

Housing Business Education Housing Factories Business Road Housing/ - 

(87) (14) & Health/ (33) (13) (77) Construction Education 

Factories/ 

(50) & Health 

Brick 

Institutions 

Fields 

(3) 

(17) 

Housing Business/ Brick Housing Public - Housing/ - - 

(67) Agr. Fields (44) Utilities 

Road 

Industries (5) 

(11) 

Constn. 

(10) 

(25) 

Housing Business Brick Housing - - Road Edujcation - 

(81) (15) Fields (14) 

Constn. & Health 

(4) 

(89) Institution 

(11) 

Housing Business Brick Housing Factories - Road 

- Business 

(89) (11) Fields (27) (7) 

Constn. 

(14) 

(3) 

(57) 

Housing Business Brick Housing Factories Business Road Education Business 

(78) (13) Fields (30) (7) (2) Constn. & Health (14) 

(3) 

(57) Institution 

(13) 


Note: Non-reported areas excluded self-owned land amount to 1.98% of 12.28 acres, sold area 

accounts for 58% of 19.98 acres; and acquired/donated shares 3% of 9.31 acres. 

Figures in parentheses indicate percentage shares to uses.

Conversion of Agricultural Land to Non-agricultural Uses

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?